How ‘Consuming Nations’ Should Stop Contributing to Worldwide Deprivation: A Concise Overview of Relevant Literature

Abstract

The terms “consuming nations” and “providing nations” distinguish between nations consuming more than their fair share of resources, and those providing resources on unfair terms. An overview and synthesis of 500 references, in various disciplines, suggests that (a) the actions of consuming nations have contributed, and continue to contribute, to deprivation in providing nations and (b) to stop contributing to this deprivation, consuming nations need to reform their policies. Consuming-nation governments are potentially violating the subsistence rights of residents of providing nations, and consuming-nation residents have a responsibility to work toward their governments taking the necessary action to end the violation.

Introduction

Aims and Overview of This Article

There are many books and articles on various aspects of how some nations have contributed, and continue to contribute, to deprivation in other nations. There are also many suggestions on how nations that are contributing to deprivation elsewhere might stop doing so. Exploring this vast literature suggests the need for an overview that is comprehensive in scope, referring to all the main issues and to a representative selection of the relevant literature, and clear and concise in its presentation and language. This article aims to provide that overview, in the form of a coherent synthesis of some of the relevant literature in philosophy, economics, history, physical sciences, political science, development studies, international law, and international relations.

In a sense, this overview is to the literature it surveys (500 references) what a map is to the mapped territory. The overview thus aims (a) to help those who are unfamiliar with this literature to find their way around it and (b) to highlight aspects of, or connections within, the literature, which those who know it well may not have previously noticed. For ease of reading, this main version lists and cites only 50 of the sources, and groups citations at paragraph ends. A supplemental version is available as supplemental material at the end of the online version of this article, or by e-mailing the author. The supplemental version has identical text to this main version (with the sole exception of this paragraph), but lists and cites all 500 references, hyperlinked in the relevant sentences, and includes bookmarks for navigation. The reference listings in each version are hyperlinked to sources, and the listing in the supplemental version notes the many that are open access, or otherwise free to read. The supplemental version thus allows swift movement from points in the article to their sources in the literature. This main version should be read in the light of the supplemental version. For example, many points with no citations in this version do have citations in the supplemental version, and other points have more citations in the supplemental version than they do in this main version.

The rest of this first section introduces the terms “consuming nations” and “providing nations” to distinguish nations consuming more than their fair share of resources, from those providing resources on unfair terms. The following section highlights that consuming nations have contributed to deprivation in providing nations through actions in their former colonies and the slave trade, through resource use since 1850, through their practices in international trade, and by contributing to conflict, corruption, and bad governance within providing nations. The third section goes on to suggest that consuming nations should therefore pay appropriate reparations, achieve net zero emissions much sooner than 2040, aim for “one planet living,” adopt more just trade practices, and move to a wholly nonviolent defense strategy. The final section notes that consuming-nation governments are potentially violating the subsistence rights of residents of providing nations and so have a shared liability for the economic cost of ending such violation. It also notes that consuming-nation residents have a responsibility to work toward their governments taking the necessary action, including by building public support for the required policy changes.

Classifying Nations: Consuming and Providing

It can be inappropriate or ambiguous to use terms such as developing and developed to classify nations. While Third World, First World, South, and North can be useful terms in some contexts, this article introduces and uses the terms “consuming nations” and “providing nations.” These terms highlight that nations with high levels of consumption depend on other nations that provide the resources that contribute to that consumption. The intended meanings of these terms are as follows:

Consuming nations are nations that, historically or currently or both, have consumed

more than their fair share of the biophysical resources of the world, and/or

commodities produced by people of other nations who were not remunerated fairly, and/or

proportionately more of the fossil fuel that has led to current CO₂ levels.

Providing nations are nations that, historically or currently or both, have provided

biophysical resources to other nations without fair compensation, and/or

commodities for other nations without fair remuneration for the relevant labor, and/or

proportionately less of a contribution to current worldwide CO₂ levels from fossil fuel use.

In each instance, “proportionately” refers to the relative sizes of populations. The elements of these intended meanings are explored in the next section. The terms are non-binary: some nations will not clearly fall into either of these categories, but the United Kingdom, for example, clearly falls into the “consuming nations” category.

Deprivation: Definition and Philosophy

It is in this context that this article uses the term “deprivation.” Deprivation can literally mean “the act of taking possession away from” or “the state of having had something taken away”. These literal meanings of deprivation helpfully highlight that there are two sides to deprivation—some people are being deprived and other people, institutions, or structures are depriving them. This article will outline how deprivation in providing nations is partly the result of consuming nations taking resources away from providing nations (Schwarz et al., 1988, p. 275).

Philosophers generally agree that those who can have a moral responsibility to respond to deprivation, although they disagree about why, and to what extent. For example, our duties to respond might depend on whether or not we have contributed to the bad experience of others or on whether or not we benefit from things that contribute to that bad experience.

Any of these views depend on trying to identify the factors contributing to deprivation, even if we might never fully understand them. This motivates the multidisciplinary approach of this article (Mamdani, 2010, p. 4).

Some philosophers argue that one generic level and form of response is ethically required to extreme needs, but there are significant weaknesses in these arguments. For example, determining how to respond to a long-term, chronic situation is much harder than responding to a one-off, emergency situation. Likewise, it is hard to decide between many situations that call for a response or between the many appropriate responses to any given situation. Further, individuals need to balance responding to distant strangers with responding to close family and friends. Thus, there is no simple answer to the question of how much time, effort, and resources an individual should invest in the following possible responses to worldwide deprivation (Miller, 2010, pp. 13–21; Murphy, 2016, pp. 81–96).

Language and Approach

This article is (a) written in English, by an author whose first language is English, and (b) directly reflects only literature in, or translated into, English. This contributes to a systematic distorting “epistemic bias.” It also risks contributing to neocolonialism and hegemony.

To mitigate the extent to which this article contributes to structural epistemic injustice, I adopt a form of conversationalism or pluriversality. I aim to reflect views from a wide range of backgrounds and contexts and to avoid favoring the priorities and perspectives of the consuming nations. This is, however, hard to do because providing nations are under-represented in the literature and because of unchallenged, and often unacknowledged, dominant epistemic frameworks.

This article often refers to Africa because around half of all people who experience acute multidimensional poverty live there, despite it representing less than one fifth of the total world population. In this article, “Africa” refers to the entire geographic continent, despite the nations in that vast continent being far from homogenous.

Consuming Nations’ Contribution to Deprivation in Providing Nations

As already noted, responding to deprivation requires identifying factors that contribute to it. These factors are complex and involve the past as well as the present.

The following subsections consider how consuming nations have contributed to deprivation in providing nations in five specific ways: actions in the former colonies and the slave trade; resource use since 1850, which has contributed to the current climate crisis; practices in international trade; contribution to conflict in providing nations; and contribution to corruption and bad governance within providing nations.

Consuming nations are only partly responsible for deprivation in providing nations. Other individuals and entities are also partly responsible, but this article concentrates on the contribution of consuming nations to such deprivation.

Consuming Nations’ Actions from the 1500s to the 1950s: Genocide, Slavery, Theft of Resources, Environmental Destruction, and Colonial Exploitation

Economic inequality in the world today is the result of many historical processes, of which European colonialism is one of the most important. Previous empires also involved colonialism, but five centuries ago, prior to European colonialism, economic differences between nations were much smaller (Okyere-Manu, 2016, sect. 3.2).

Over several centuries, a few consuming nations inflicted death, destruction, and plunder on many providing nations through slavery and the colonial system. Consuming nations, however, seldom take responsibility for these previous acts of genocide, dispossession, and exploitation. Indeed, consuming nations seldom even acknowledge the true horror of these acts, through which consuming nations stole the labor and natural resources of many providing nations. This theft of resources enriched consuming nations and contributed to enduring economic structures from which consuming-nation residents now benefit (Dembele, 2012; Kumarakulasingam, 2019; Miller, 2013, p. 9; Okyere-Manu, 2016, sects. 3.2, 3.3; Plumelle-Uribe, 2020; Shivji, 2006, p. 24).

Of the four slave trades that affected Africa over 10 centuries, the trans-Atlantic slave trade was the largest. All of them had adverse long-term effects on the African countries affected. Some of these effects are enduring and devastating. Slavery and the colonial system destroyed social, cultural, and political processes in many colonized societies. There were substantial precolonial institutions in many subsequently colonized regions, but the relevant historical material is often ignored (Machakanja, 2015, pp. 198–202, 213; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013, pp. 5–6; Shivji, 2006, p. 24; Tom, 2017, pp. 13–18).

There is now a wide literature persuasively challenging the frequent suggestion that the colonial system was good for the colonies. Colonial history resulted in an inadequate rural infrastructure. This slowed down the growth of food production. Economies that had been self-reliant became exporters of food and raw materials, and importers of manufactured goods, which few could afford. Some colonies were systematically deindustrialized, which significantly damaged their economies (Mishra & Rastogi, 2018; Okyere-Manu, 2016, sect. 3.2).

Consistently, worldwide, incorporation into the trade system dominated by the consuming nations led, in the providing nations, to inadequate wages, poorer health, and shorter lives. Thus, poverty in providing nations today does not reflect their traditional ways of life but results from the destruction of these traditional ways of life that avoided such poverty (Sullivan & Hickel, 2023, p. 4).

That said, the complexity of the factors involved, including the need to consider counterfactual histories, makes it hard to assess exactly how much damage was done by colonialism.

Consuming Nations’ Resource Use and CO₂ Emissions: 1850s–Present

Over the nineteenth century, consuming nations largely stopped exploiting slaves and moved from using wind and water power to using fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Consuming nations became rich by using, in industry, far more than their fair share of fossil fuels, and of the capacity of the Earth to absorb the related emissions, and so have deprived providing nations of their share of these finite resources. Consuming nations continue to use more than their fair share of environmental resources, to reduce the “environmental space” available to providing nations, and to impose adverse environmental impacts on them. Providing nations have contributed less to climate change than consuming nations, but the effects of climate change are worse in providing nations than in consuming nations. For example, agricultural productivity is being damaged in Africa more than in other world regions, and climate change is affecting migration in multiple and complex ways (Elver, 2019, p. 354).

The adverse effects of climate change resulting from the economies of consuming nations are injustices inflicted on providing nations. This has been termed “climate apartheid”: a form of systematic racism, by consuming nations which have far more resources to adapt to climate change than providing nations do. In this context, the Paris Agreement is dangerously inadequate, and the inadequate subsequent action demonstrates consuming nations’ commitment to not fundamentally change their existing ways of life.

Economic growth in the consuming nations continues to be based on over-consuming the world’s resources: asymmetric flows of resources to consuming nations from providing nations have persisted into this century and cause significant damage in the providing nations (Dorninger et al., 2021; Hickel et al., 2022; Infante-Amate et al., 2022; Ndikumana, 2015, pp. 22–23).

Consuming Nations’ Actions from the 1950s to the Present: Trade Injustice

Since the 1950s, most former colonies have become politically independent, and are now “postcolonial” in one or more of the various senses of that term. Many have, however, been “neocolonized” through a power structure that dominates, oppresses, and exploits providing nations. They achieved political emancipation, but not the fuller liberation that they sought (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013, pp. 5, 18–19, 67–73).

Consuming nations aim to access resources and dominate markets in providing nations, partly through coercion, threats, intimidation, or violence. Several features of current economic interaction between consuming nations and providing nations create major difficulties for the latter, such as debt and unfair negotiations and agreements on trade (Ezeonu, 2021, sects. 3, 4.1, 4.2; Hickel et al., 2022, p. 9; Mamdani, 2010, pp. 21–22; Mangani, 2022; Miller, 2010, pp. 70, 73)

Ongoing policies, which predictably deprive people of what they need to live, are a violation of the right to subsistence. Such violations can arise from interactions, institutions, or more subtle mechanisms such as lack of regulation. These more subtle mechanisms are an instance of background or structural injustice. All three types of violations of the right to subsistence feature in trade injustice (Ashford, 2018, p. 87; Ronzoni, 2009).

As noted above, colonialism turned many providing nations into exporters of natural resources and importers of manufactured products. Providing nations have subsequently remained in these roles in international trade. This leads to food insecurity in providing nations because, in the world market, agricultural prices are volatile and natural resources generate less income than manufactured products.

These interactional violations are exacerbated by institutional violations under which consuming nations require providing nations to give priority to cash crops over producing food for local consumption, resulting in greater dependence on food imports. At the same time, consuming nations maintain trade barriers to protect their own farmers, which artificially lower agricultural prices in world markets and seriously damage livelihoods of farmers in providing nations. Current trade arrangements for producing food thus deprive many of the food they need and lead to hunger (Dembele, 2012, p. 184; Gonzalez, 2014, pp. 170–178).

More subtle violations arise through people in consuming nations not realizing the effect of their choices, which often lead to deprivation in providing nations. For example, consuming imported fresh fruits, coffee, and spices can contribute to the conversion of arable lands, from growing staples to growing luxuries for export, which can be devastating for the residents of providing nations. Deprivation is primarily driven by the unreasonable and growing demands of consuming-nation residents, rather than by the reasonable demands of providing-nation residents.

Consuming Nations’ Contribution to Conflict in Providing Nations

Deprivation is higher in conflict-affected settings. There are many ways to analyze the causes of any given conflict. For example, conflict in providing nations is often explained as being between different groups in those nations who each want to control the revenues from resources. This explanation obscures the role of other factors in such conflicts, such as the often-violent policies of former colonial powers (Cusato, 2020, pp. 655–656, 658, 666; Miller, 2013, pp. 7, 21–23; Mukherjee, 2018).

The trans-Atlantic slave trade generated significant intra-African conflict. Colonial activity is another direct cause of internal conflict in former colonies today: colonial policies often created distinctions based on perceived ethnicity, and these distinctions became a permanent feature of many states; colonization is intrinsically violent, as noted above; and violent conflict featured in the campaigns for independence. Violence also results from the fact that governments of newly decolonized countries were given responsibility for citizens’ socio-economic rights, but years of colonial plunder and extractive social institutions made it virtually impossible for them to fulfil this responsibility. In contrast, the former colonial powers that had been enriched by this colonial plunder accepted no such responsibility (Ashford, 2018, pp. 86–90; Mamdani, 2010, pp. 175–176, 312–313, 323; N’Diaye, 2011, p. 30; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013, pp. 21, 125–144).

Contemporary conflict and violence in Africa, however, is usually highlighted in a way that hides the contribution of colonialism. Likewise, the socio-economic grievances that often underlie violent conflict are often obscured. As discussed in the first three subsections of this section, consuming nations are heavily implicated in these grievances. Ongoing policies of consuming nations also directly contribute to conflict in providing nations (Cusato, 2020; N’Diaye, 2011, pp. 28–36).

In particular, consuming nations are largely responsible for climate change, which itself constitutes structural violence. Climate change also increases the risk of violent conflict, but the precise mechanisms by which this happens are unclear.

Consuming Nations’ Contribution to Corruption and Bad Governance in Providing Nations

Corruption significantly contributes to deprivation. Consuming nations have contributed, and continue to contribute, to corruption in providing nations (Kieh, 2023).

The slave trade, which was intrinsically corrupt, and colonial activity more generally are directly responsible for corruption in former colonies today (Dembele, 2012, pp. 181–182; Tom, 2017, pp. 20–22, 28–29).

Before being colonized, many African nations enjoyed governance systems that balanced autocracy with democracy and reciprocity. Colonial powers were effectively dictatorships with no checks or balances. For example, the colonial state made law for unrepresented subjects, but it itself was unaccountable under that law. Such “dictatorships” remained common in post-independence Africa, even in states that claimed to be democratic (Machakanja, 2015, pp. 207–209; Tangwa, 2011, pp. 181–191).

Colonial powers also set up institutions to control, and extract rents from, indigenous peoples, leading to poverty for the vast majority of the population, by removing their incentives and opportunities. After independence, these same institutions either remained or were replaced by similar ones. Such institutions continued to work against the interests of the population and so were profoundly unhelpful in the newly independent states (Onyango, 2015, pp. 185–187; Shivji, 2006, pp. 27, 29).

Arbitrary borders drawn by colonial powers also contributed to severe governance challenges for the subsequent independent nations. Multiethnic, multilingual territories needed to create national unity where there was no natural unity. This challenge was exacerbated by the way colonial powers had exaggerated perceived ethnic distinctions (Tom, 2017, pp. 23, 25–27).

Colonial powers heavily influenced the independence constitutions. These, typically, did not reflect the reality of the state, such as its inappropriate institutions, and so had limited influence on subsequent political practice (N’Diaye, 2011, p. 30; Onyango, 2015, pp. 188, 191; Shivji, 2006, p. 29).

Consuming nations continue to be at least partly responsible for bad governance in providing nations. For example, the need to service debt owed to consuming nations damages the democratic institutional basis and social cohesion in debtor countries. Corruption is encouraged by official aid, which can financially support corrupt governments. Corruption is also enabled by financial transactions occurring in consuming nations, or territories within their control, and by companies resident in consuming nations being party to relevant transactions (Dembele, 2012, p. 191; Igbatayo, 2019, pp. 67, 80; Moyo, 2009, pp. 54, 99; Ndikumana, 2015, p. 14).

Possible Reforms to Consuming Nations’ Policies and Behavior

The previous section outlined how past and present actions of consuming nations are partly responsible for deprivation in providing nations. Consuming nations should, therefore, as a matter of justice, act to reduce that deprivation. The primary responsibility of consuming nations is to reform their own policies and behavior. Any responses to deprivation that involve the policies and behavior of providing nations, must principally be driven and coordinated from within the regions and communities that directly experience it. For example, African-led responses might involve pan-African integration, or decentralization (Deveaux, 2021, pp. 36-40; Khisa, 2022).

The rest of this section considers only possible reforms to consuming-nation policies and behavior in response to deprivation in providing nations. Communities directly experiencing deprivation have a right to shape these responses, so many of the reforms considered in this section are ones suggested by those in providing nations (Deveaux, 2021, pp. 28–30, 39–40).

Reparations and Repaying the Colonial Debt

The call for reparations raises many issues. At least in cases of enduring injustice, reparations are appropriate and necessary. In the context of slavery, many arguments against reparations have been well-countered. Substantial work has been done both on quantifying monetary reparations due and on non-monetary reparations. There is also a strong case for reparations in respect of colonialism (Theurer, 2024).

People who contribute to structures that reproduce historic injustice, should be held accountable for the resulting “structural debt” they accumulate (Nuti, 2021, p. 1248).

As already noted, consuming nations have become rich through stolen labor and natural resources, so some of their resources rightfully belong to the providing nations. People who inherit stolen property also inherit the liability to rectify the original theft. Consuming nations have failed to pay the necessary rectification, and this ongoing theft contributes to deprivation in providing nations. In this way, residents of consuming nations are collectively perpetrating ongoing injustice. Most such residents, therefore, owe something to most providing-nation residents. Consuming nations might have a further remedial responsibility arising from ongoing trade injustice (Ashford, 2018, pp. 91, 99).

Consuming nations’ disproportionate historic CO₂ emissions, also generate a liability to pay damages or reparations, although the necessary calculations are complex, biophysically, ethically, and legally.

Consuming nations owe a further “ecological debt” to providing nations, based on having used more than their fair share of finite resources.

The issues are complex. Redistribution is possible, although challenging, within the existing state system. Redistribution payments could be paid directly to individuals rather than to states. Such payments should, however, mainly be made by states rather than by individuals. Another possible method of reparation would be through immigration policies.

Reach Net Zero by Using Less Energy, 100% Renewable

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirmed in 2023 that limiting the damage from climate change requires reaching annual net zero CO₂ emissions worldwide and “deep, rapid and sustained” emission reductions “this decade.”

The widespread commitments to reach annual net zero emissions by a given year do not specify what emissions might arise in the intervening years, but it is cumulative emissions that determine the extent of climate change. Net zero targets should, therefore, take into account both historic and current emissions. Thus, assuming an aim of net zero emissions worldwide by 2040, consuming nations should be aiming for net zero emissions much sooner.

Carbon dioxide removal technologies, also called “negative emission technologies” (NETs), are unproven at scale, and significant risks arise in relying on these technologies to meet climate goals. For example, if they do not achieve the hoped-for mitigation, it would then be too late for a “Plan B.” Achieving net zero CO₂ emissions without NETs would require far greater emission reductions than are now being planned and would imply profound changes to aspects of life in consuming nations. Similar concerns arise over carbon capture and storage, which continues to be challenging and uneconomic, and will never capture all the carbon.

Increasing nuclear power to a scale large enough to make a difference to climate change would create unprecedented challenges in terms of the control and security of weapons-usable nuclear materials, and raise multiple other concerns.

Thus, aiming for 100% renewable energy systems is a more prudent course. Concerns arise from expansion of biomass and from expansion of hydro-power. Variable renewables can generally only be combined with more predictable sources. On that basis, expansion of all of wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal power might be a suitable strategy.

Infrastructure for all of these, however, uses non-renewable metals, as do batteries and gravity-based storage systems. Increased extraction of relevant mineral resources is already raising environmental and human rights concerns. The current massive energy use by consuming nations is therefore unsustainable. Such nations must use less energy overall, even if it is all renewable. Achieving net zero will also significantly constrain worldwide use of steel and cement.

Widespread reductions in car use and meat consumption could result in large emissions cuts. This will, however, only happen if there are major changes in values. Achieving adequate emission cuts also requires changes to the core policies of governments and businesses. Such changes should include rapid decarbonization of energy grids, canceling fossil fuel subsidies, and ending the exploration and extraction of fossil fuels (Webb, 2012, pp. 13–14).

Overall, enormous changes are necessary, but the sacrifices required in terms of quality of life might be far smaller. Decarbonization policies should aim to minimize adverse social and environmental side effects, nationally and internationally, and to fairly allocate, within and between nations, both responsibility for emission reductions and the related costs.

Aiming for “One Planet Living,” not “Sustainable Development”

Talk of “development” often reflects an implicit assumption that consuming nations have set an economic example that providing nations should aim for. In fact, consuming nation economies depend on exploiting the resources of providing nations and treating them unfairly (Onyango, 2015, p. 183; see the first three subsections of the previous section).

It is impossible to “decouple” economic growth from resource use and adverse environmental impact either in theory or in practice. Relative decoupling is possible (incremental increases in economic output having progressively smaller environmental impacts), but absolute decoupling worldwide (progressively increasing total economic output having a progressively smaller environmental impact) remains implausible. Observed absolute decoupling is always limited geographically and also generally otherwise, such as only in terms of carbon emissions, or only temporary. We live on a finite planet, and so the worldwide economy needs to contract.

It is not biophysically possible for all countries worldwide to achieve the economic “prosperity” of consuming nations. For example, for everyone worldwide to live how an average UK resident lives would require over double the resources of our single planet Earth. In a similar way, consumption in consuming nations largely depends on the labor of people in providing nations. Ecological limits and justice require consuming nations to give up their current way of life and also require a major redistribution of resources among, and within, nations (Dorninger et al., 2021, p. 10; Fanning et al., 2022; Hickel et al., 2024).

Sustainable development, which aims to “leave no-one behind,” is therefore part of the problem, rather than the solution: it sets growth as a goal and is silent on redistribution (Weber, 2017, pp. 404–405).

Rejecting mainstream views of development, some redefine it. Examples include Ìdàgbàsókè, holistic development, climate compatible development, and the sustainable development index. Others explore alternatives to mainstream development. Deconstructing mainstream development encourages consideration of many worldviews, some new, others long-established. Buen Vivir, or good living, and similar views in South America are widely noted. Other long-established alternatives include Ubuntu and similar views in Africa, which highlight interdependence among humanity; Swaraj, which emphasizes self-reliance and self-governance, in India; and interdependence between humans and the environment in the Anishinaabe tradition in North America. Newer alternatives include care, prosperity, degrowth, and solidarity (Deveaux, 2021).

In the context of this subsection, degrowth offers a framework in which to work toward a restructured, repurposed, “post-growth” society that uses less energy and material, but which allows greater well-being (Käyrä & Kuhmonen, 2024).

Overall, we need to achieve “one planet living”. In other words, worldwide consumption needs to fall within planetary boundaries, while fulfilling human needs in all nations. The necessary changes go beyond individual action, to reorganizing each national economy and infrastructure (Fanning et al., 2022).

Working Toward More Just Trade and Investment Practices

Identifying how to make trade and investment practices just, is complex, but it may be easier to see how to make them more just. On that basis, consuming nations have a responsibility to work toward more just trade and investment.

It is unclear, both in theory and in practice, whether or not free trade will reduce deprivation in providing nations. Simple opposition to existing agricultural subsidies in consuming nations might therefore be inappropriate. The better approach might be to reform the consuming-nation policies that currently constrict or prohibit such subsidies in providing nations, and so contribute to deprivation in providing nations (Ndikumana, 2015).

Changes are also needed in other areas. Trade-related intellectual property agreements undermine food security in providing nations and lead to lack of funding for diseases that mainly affect providing nations. Consuming-nation healthcare recruitment practices currently create severe staff shortages in providing-nation healthcare services, and fail to reimburse the training costs incurred by providing nations. Current power differences between providing-nation workers, and those in consuming nations who benefit from their work, result in structural exploitation. Bilateral and regional investment agreements often give foreign investors advantages by limiting the power of investee states to regulate the relevant operations (Ndikumana, 2015, pp. 18-19).

Achieving justice will involve targeting the relevant institutions, structures, practices, and agreements in order to empower those adversely affected by trade injustice. In this context, “solidarity” is appropriate. That said, it is hard to respond fairly to structural injustice when the people subject to that injustice are thereby denied the necessary power to end it. They can, however, at least influence the strategies and actions of those who act in solidarity with them (Deveaux, 2021, Ch. 6; Nuti, 2021, sect. 3.1).

Moving from Conventional and Nuclear to Nonviolent Defense

Armed conflict is a major contributor to deprivation. Thus, the manufacture and sale of weapons by consuming nations, to participants in conflicts in providing nations, is exacerbating deprivation in providing nations. On that basis, consuming nations should respond to deprivation in providing nations by ending their current exports of weapons (N’Diaye, 2011, pp. 40–41; Tangwa, 2011, pp. 193–194).

Consuming nations whose way of life depends on a continuous threat of violence have no credible basis for persuading other nations or sub-national groups not to use violence to achieve their ends. Nuclear deterrence policies constitute coercion by threat of violence, and even conventional defense policies reflect the idea that armed force is an appropriate way to deal with threats. Consuming nations should, therefore, respond to deprivation in providing nations by pursuing a process of transarmament. The ultimate aim would be to apply wholly nonviolent methods in all security and defense strategies, and to decommission all nuclear and conventional arms (Drummond, 2021).

In a wholly nonviolent national defense strategy, rather than the right to armed self-defense, a state exercises its right to collective resistance through collective nonviolent strategies involving the whole society, based on detailed advance planning, training, and preparation. Traditional approaches to foreign and defense policy, based on negotiation and diplomacy, would remain part of a nonviolent defense policy. In general, unarmed resistance appears to be at least as “effective” as armed resistance.

Like violent defense, a nonviolent defense strategy involves significant risk. Current nuclear deterrence policies, however, involve much greater risks, many of which are unquantifiable. It is unclear whether or not nuclear deterrence has ever been effective. Either way, international relations are now fundamentally unpredictable, so nuclear deterrence is now inherently unstable.

Consuming nations need to reach net zero CO₂ emissions soon. Implementing a wholly nonviolent security and defense strategy would eliminate the significant CO₂ emissions related to military forces, which would be hard to do otherwise, particularly for air forces.

Responding in Solidarity Rather Than with “Aid”

Consuming nations’ primary responsibilities are, as outlined in previous subsections, to reform their practices and policies, and to make international structures more just. In the context of deprivation in providing nations, so-called “aid” is, at best, only a secondary responsibility with a lower priority than these primary responsibilities of justice. Inappropriate focus on “aid” can be an unhelpful distraction, diverting attention and resources from alternative responses that aim to make more fundamental and structural changes. “Solidarity” is a more appropriate concept: supporting the people most directly affected in their action to end the injustice. Solidarity involves compassion in its literal sense of “suffering with,” perhaps by giving up advantages that depend on injustice.

Much so-called “aid” comes from consuming nations that are responsible for much of the harm and misery that the “aid” aims to alleviate. To the extent that “donor” consuming nations continue in trade, immigration, and financial regulation policies that harm the “recipient” countries, the aggregate effect of these policies can undermine, and easily outweigh, any benefits that their “aid” brings. Similarly, consuming nations that give official “aid” often obtain benefits from the “recipients,” in terms of raw materials and markets, which are greater than the aid they give. The result might be no net benefit to providing nations (Hickel et al., 2022, p. 8; Oruka, 1988, p. 467).

It is hard to establish whether or not so-called “aid” has overall beneficial effects, whether in a specific case or in general. Even if “aid” contributes to growth, growth does not necessarily lead to overall improvement to people’s living standards and some “aid” has had adverse, rather than beneficial, effects. Until justice-enforcing supranational institutions are set up, “aid” may still be appropriate as it might fulfil an obligation to enforce subsistence rights. On that basis, the rest of this subsection considers the challenge of how any “aid” might be appropriately given (Moyo, 2009, pp. 16, 49–50, 53–54, 61, 99; Murphy, 2016, p. xxvi; Oruka, 1988, p. 471).

All so-called “aid,” official or otherwise, necessarily has political consequences in the country, region, or community in which it is distributed. Those providing “aid” should acknowledge its political nature, even though doing this may severely constrain their operation. Advocates of “aid” should also acknowledge the complexity of its context, rather than present it simplistically in order to generate greater support (Rubenstein, 2015, pp. 3–4, 217–218).

Donors to an “aid” agency have a responsibility to monitor the activity and outcomes that they have funded. Further, “aid” agencies should build democratic accountability into their work by, for example, recognizing the social and political agency of “beneficiaries” in the context of decisions about “aid” provision, and being accountable to them for the results of that provision. Often recipient “participation” is restricted by donor-imposed constraints. Terms such as “partnership” and “participation” can mask power imbalances in working relationships, which are inconsistent with the mutuality and balance of true partnership. Likewise, the necessary local “ownership” of “aid” is often superficial. So-called “aid” should reflect appropriate “reciprocity,” and respect the expertise and intellectual capabilities of the “recipient” states (Murphy, 2016, pp. 166–169; Rubenstein, 2015, sect. 2.2, pp. 215–216).

The possibility that “aid” payments should be direct to individuals rather than to states is gaining support. The benefits and limitations of cash transfer schemes might be relevant in this context. Remittances, which often exceed levels of “aid,” might provide another useful comparator (Moyo, 2009, p. 132).

Achieving These Consuming-nation Responses in Practice

Some suggest that the cost of reducing deprivation in providing nations would be relatively low. The above overview makes this seem unlikely. A theory that implies that our obligations are extremely demanding is, however, not necessarily at fault (Miller, 2010, pp. 222, 226).

There might also be significant costs to not taking the necessary action. For example, the economic damage from climate change might be very much worse than current forecasts, and those experiencing deprivation in providing nations might use force against those who are responsible for such deprivation (Sané, 2010, p. ix).

Consuming-nation residents are complicit in structural injustice and so have responsibilities to work with others to change the unjust practices in which they participate. This may include initiating or supporting action to reform or replace existing institutions (to achieve ongoing justice), and toward structural redistribution (to compensate for historic injustice). Achieving the requisite changes calls for people in consuming nations to support collective political action led by people in providing nations. It is likely to require significant and complex coordination of individual efforts, as well as institutional action to change existing structures. This is a collective action problem with both cooperative and distributive aspects. There is a shared general duty of justice to work together for the necessary societal and institutional changes. The “shared duty” is a duty of individual agents, but each agent has only partial responsibility to fulfil it, and the precise responsibility of any individual agent is not necessarily obvious (Ashford, 2018, p. 102; Schwenkenbecher, 2021).

The following two subsections consider the responsibilities of consuming-nation governments and residents, respectively.

Responsibilities of Consuming-nation Governments

Governments might see their principal responsibility as being toward residents of their own state, unless there is some political integration with other states. Governments should, however, give priority to fundamental interests of nonresidents over less-fundamental interests of residents (Miller, 2010, pp. 210–234).

These fundamental interests include subsistence rights. A threat to the enjoyment of these rights in one state creates responsibilities for other states. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights suggests such responsibilities are limited to “achieving progressively the full realization of the rights”, but consuming nations are potentially violating the human rights of providing-nation residents. This structural violation creates shared responsibilities that include, for example, a shared liability to fund appropriate action to end the violation. Any such action should, however, be led by members of the society in which the violation takes place (Ashford, 2018, p. 87; Baderin & McCorquodale, 2010; Elver, 2019, p. 370; Oruka, 1988, pp. 468–471; Sengupta, 2007, p. 344).

Consuming-nation governments could also work to implement the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly, which aims to give direct representation to the peoples of the world and would have power to pass binding legislation. The international order should reflect a variety of legal, cultural, and political practices, rather than the current hegemony of laws, ideas, and beliefs dominant in consuming nations.

Responsibilities of Consuming-nation Residents

Consuming-nation residents have a responsibility to seek government action. Typically, consuming-nation governments will only make structural changes that are unlikely to damage the collective way of life of their residents. Consuming-nation residents can, however, influence public opinion to support the necessary structural changes by enlightening fellow residents about the costs that their current way of life imposes on providing nations (Webb, 2012).

Collective action by residents of consuming nations will be hard to achieve due to dominant background beliefs and assumptions, and systematic unearned advantage. Working to change social norms can contribute to lasting changes in behavior. Active involvement in political parties and campaigns is another strategy for achieving structural change. Less-conventional strategies, such as boycotts, mass protests, sit-ins, and other forms of political disruption, can make it hard for the privileged to ignore the political claims of the oppressed. Such action might be justified even where it appears undemocratic or unlawful. Such action can change for the better the attitudes and actions of people who are challenged by it.

Academic inquiry can challenge norms and power structures, and promote “social wisdom” in the rest of society. A large-scale evaluation and synthesis of relevant research has been suggested. Whether academic inquiry influences behavior in wider society depends on how the results are communicated. Appropriate language can contribute in this context: the existence of deprivation in providing nations “dehumanizes half the planet to a chorus of utter indifference”; it is treated as “less odious a scourge or more imaginable an atrocity than the crimes currently being prosecuted”; such indifference is a “vice”; the inadequate climate policies of consuming nations constitute “apartheid”, and their defense policies constitute “terrorism” (Drummond, 2021; Reynolds & Xavier, 2016, p. 981; Sané, 2010, p. ix; Stohr, 2021).

Finally, corporate bodies can also make a contribution: shareholder interests are important, but contributing to specific aspects of justice can be a legitimate corporate aim.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.